get_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It enumerates event categories, which is genuinely informative, but says nothing about the default 120-minute lookback, the 50-item limit, whether results are paginated, or the read-only nature of the call. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves the agent guessing on several practical points.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload compactly with no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but there is no wasted verbiage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description leaves significant gaps: no filtering instructions (printer_id, types), no time-window explanation, and no result-size guidance. It is adequate as a label for the tool but incomplete as a usage specification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it largely does not: limit, types, printer_id, and since_minutes are never mentioned. The only faint signal is 'recent', which loosely gestures at the since_minutes window but gives no syntax or units.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (printer events) and enumerates the event categories returned (print started/finished/failed, pauses, HMS errors, anomaly alerts, auto-pauses), so an agent can tell what data comes back. It stops short of naming a verb or differentiating itself from neighbours like get_history or hms_active, which also surface printer timeline data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_history or hms_active. The word 'recent' hints at a recency scope but the agent gets no trigger conditions for choosing this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.